Dare I Publish Post Number Four About Ron Paul?

Supporters of Ron Paul, I must give you points for enthusiasm. Thanks for all the comments, and for keeping them, for the most part, civil. Some of the criticism I’ve received for previous posts charges I don’t know enough about Ron Paul to dare opine.

First, I do not claim to be an expert on Ron Paul or his philosophy. As such, like most Americans, I am judging him based on his recent public statements and appearances, albeit with enough background in media and U.S. history to appreciate just how far out his quotes about former U.S. presidents, as related by Tim Russert on “Meet the Press,” sound. Beyond that, I’m not terribly interested in Ron Paul except that his views provide a useful prism for discussing the idea of non-intervention, especially in a post-911 world. More on that subject to come.

For now I’ll mention some readers have critiqued my use of the word isolationist in describing Ron Paul. Taking a quick look at Merriam-Webster’s definition, I’ll concede that perhaps non-interventionist would have been more technically accurate, given that Paul is not opposed to international trade or dialogue. But I also think this critique is hairsplitting. In most discussions of U.S. foreign policy, the main meaning of the word “isolationist” is against alliances with other countries, and against military intervention under any circumstances except perhaps in reaction to a full-scale invasion of our mainland. That is the sense in which I termed Paul an isolationist.

Happy New Year to all, and please keep the comments coming. Also, any Hebrew speakers/readers: please watch for my opinion piece, to be published within the next several days in Israel’s daily Ma’ariv, about Christian Sudanese refugees presently in Israel.

This entry was written by Heather Robinson and posted on December 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm and filed under Blog.

"But in general, Paul reminds me of foreign policy liberals, who are long on condemnation, short on balanced analysis. "

I can only assume that you made this comment out of just plain not knowing of Dr. Paul's history as both a statesman and a scholar as evidenced by his books here:

http://www.mises.org/studyguide.aspx?action=author&Id=392

And his articles here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

His books are evidence of his reasoned, learned analysis. His articles are merely reflections of what he and his supporters already know to be true, namely that above and beyond all else, Liberty and the dignity of the individual always outweighs the supposed needs and desires of the State. This is never more true than when the State turns predator and begins to sap us all of our life, liberty, happiness and property all in the name of "security", "the children" or other buzzword compliant excuses for legalized plunder.

In the end, it's up to each of us to make our decisions on what we know (or what we think know). But before that can happen, we must at least take an honest effort to educate ourselves and rise above our own preconceptions.

Nuclear weapons make it silly for us to preparing for the next WWII, and that is what our alliance structure is essentially doing. We are stationing troops all over the globe ready to launch ground wars and occupations.

With nukes this is entirely redundant, we can generally sit back with our missile subs at sea ready to bring Biblical destruction on those who would attack our soil.

And as for 9/11, that could have been stopped by armed pilots. El Al, the Israeli airline, always has guns on board for just such an occasion and they have never had a single successful hijacking.